The present invention relates generally to an order of participation control device and more particularly to a system and structure which will eliminate confusion in the order of activity or participation as among a number of challengers in a "loser sits" game.
The present invention would be applicable to any situation where the order of activity or participation is voluntarily undertaken by the participants such as, specifically, pocket billiard or pool games taking place in public establishments where a bystander challenges the winner of an ongoing match between two participants. If there is more than one challenger, the order of participation is generally controlled by the concept of "first come-first served", but there are occasions when challengers forget (or intentionally misrepresent) the order in which challenges were issued and their "spot in line" to participate. These situations can be difficult, ranging from uncomfortable to violent, depending upon the circumstances. Thus, there is a need for a method of controlling order of participation in such events and eliminating the opportunity for confusion and misunderstandings about the order of participation of challengers.
While the present invention will be described in conjunction with pool games, it will be understood by those skilled in the art that the system and device would be equally applicable to other similar situations. For example, in playground basketball, there are often several groups waiting to play, and disputes can arise over the order of appearance of players or the order of appearance of teams to challenge the winner of an ongoing game for the next opportunity to play. The device would also be applicable for controlling the order of service in retail establishments, for example, fast food ice cream shops, the order of service for wrapping of packages in department stores at Christmas and the like.
Traditionally, in public establishments where billiards, pocket billiards (pool) and similar table games are available for play either for a fee or as an amenity of the establishment, the custom has developed throughout this country of spectators challenging the winner of an ongoing game with the loser sitting out the match between the winner and the challenger. When there are only three participants, this situation is easily controlled because the only bystander of interest is the challenger and there is no confusion as to who is next to play. However, when there are several challengers, the order of play can become confused and a matter of dispute among the challengers. These disputes can be friendly and generally easily resolved, but occasionally, they become heated and even violent. Because pool tables are provided in many establishments that serve alcohol, the occasion for such disputes can increase when participants have had too much to drink.
Over the years, one method of controlling the challenger order of participation has been by the challengers placing a quarter on the rail of the table. Historically, placing quarter on the rail of the table was to pay for the next game so that the challenger paid for the play of the next game and if the winner continued to win, he could play free. The price of pool has increased over the years and most establishments that have pool tables have coin operated tables which may require two, three or four quarters to release the pool balls so that a game can be played. In these circumstances, generally the challenger places on the rail a number of quarters necessary to pay for the next game and establishes himself as the "next up" challenger. If a second challenger appears before the ongoing game is finished, he can place quarters representing the price of the game on the rail indicating that he also wants to challenge. This process continued and often times there may exist as many as three, four or five challengers waiting to play. The confusion arises because quarters are fungible and there is no precise method of knowing which quarter belongs to which challenger and the order in which quarters were placed on the table.
This problem has been recognized in the past and at least two inventors have attempted to resolve the problem by devices and systems for which patents have issued. Specifically, in 1975, U.S. Pat. No. 3,861,678 was issued to Fansler and directed specifically at this problem. The Fansler device was a strip of material with several numbers on it and each challenger would place his quarter on the next highest number in order to identify his position in the challenger group. If a person wanted to challenge and there were two pending challenges with quarters on numbers 1 and 2, he would place his quarter on spot number 3 and would then be obligated to remember that he was number 3 in the order of challenge. Others might follow and place their quarters behind the number 3 challenger. However, this system still required persons to remember the number they had placed their quarter on and to be honest about that recollection. When people have played several games during the course of a night, they may get confused over the number on which they had placed their quarter for this particular game as compared to a previous game and a will dispute arise over the order of challenge. Others might intentionally misrepresent the number on which they place their quarter and create such a dispute. Thus, the Fansler device is lacking in control of the very problem which it attempts to address.
In 1977, U.S. Pat. No. 4,016,937 was issued to Abraham on a device directed to this same problem. However, the Abraham device required the same memory and honesty by the challengers and was fraught with the same problems as the Fansler device. Understanding this background, Applicant has realized that there is a need for a device that would control the next up order of challenge in pool games and other similar situations which would prevent confusion as to the identity of the next challenger and the order of participation by the various parties desiring to play. Such a device is presently lacking in the prior art.